Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

This case concerns an appeal from an arbitration award.

The applicants appealed an arbitrator's decision that found the respondent was entitled to 50% of corporate shares based on proprietary estoppel.

The court granted leave to appeal and set aside the arbitrator's award.

The court held that proprietary estoppel in Ontario is currently limited to interests in land and cannot be extended to other forms of property, such as shares, by an arbitrator.

Furthermore, the court found that the email on which the proprietary estoppel claim was based was internally inconsistent, ambiguous, and conditional, thus failing to meet the requirement for a clear and unequivocal promise.

The respondent's claim was dismissed.

The applicant and respondent, former partners, both sought the sale of their jointly owned property.

While agreeing on the sale, they disputed the distribution of net proceeds, with the respondent claiming sole beneficial ownership or a constructive trust due to her significantly larger financial and labour contributions.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for a resulting trust but found unjust enrichment by the applicant.

The court ordered that after the respondent is reimbursed for her downpayment and renovation costs, the remaining net proceeds be divided 17% to the applicant and 83% to the respondent, reflecting their respective financial contributions to the mortgage and carrying costs.

This endorsement addresses costs for an eight-day family law trial concerning primary residence, parenting time, decision-making, child support, s.7 expenses, and equalization.

The trial results were mixed, with the Applicant largely successful on some issues and the Respondent on others.

The court found that both parties contributed significantly to the excessive length of the trial through entrenched positions, failure to narrow issues, and inefficient presentation of evidence.

Despite offers to settle being similar to the ultimate trial outcomes, the parties failed to resolve their differences.

Consequently, the court determined that success was divided and neither party should be rewarded for their litigation conduct, ordering each party to bear their own costs.

The plaintiffs brought an ex parte motion seeking a Mareva injunction, an interim order for the recovery of personal property, an order freezing assets, and leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the defendants.

The motion alleged extensive fraud, conversion, and other torts by the primary defendant, Yueh-Tang Yang, involving millions of dollars and real estate, and a serious risk of asset dissipation.

The court granted most of the requested relief, finding a prima facie case of fraud and a demonstrated risk of asset dissipation, satisfying the criteria for the extraordinary remedies sought.

The applicant father sought the immediate return of the parties' two young children to Ontario, alleging the respondent mother had unilaterally relocated them to British Columbia.

The mother sought to dismiss the motion, arguing the children were habitually resident in British Columbia and requesting supervised/virtual parenting time for the father due to concerns about his mental health and criminal charges.

The court found the children were habitually resident in Ontario, as the mother's surreptitious move did not alter their habitual residence.

The court ordered the children's return to Ontario within 15 days and established an interim supervised parenting schedule for the father, pending DNA testing for the younger child.

This was an uncontested trial where the Applicant sought sole decision-making, primary residence, child support (including arrears and section 7 expenses), and a claim for unjust enrichment related to the matrimonial home.

The Respondent failed to participate in the trial and had not complied with previous financial disclosure orders.

The court granted all relief sought by the Applicant, finding that the Respondent had been unjustly enriched by the sale of the matrimonial home and ordering a monetary award to the Applicant.

The respondent wife brought a motion to strike the applicant husband's application due to his repeated failure to comply with multiple disclosure orders in their divorce proceedings concerning financial matters, spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

While the court found the applicant's non-compliance wilful, it declined to strike the pleadings immediately due to recent, albeit late, disclosure.

Instead, the court ordered the applicant to provide specific outstanding financial disclosure within strict timelines, including a business valuation, updated financial statements, and tax returns.

Failure to comply with certain orders would result in the abandonment of related claims, and the respondent was granted leave to bring a further urgent motion to strike if the applicant failed to meet the new deadlines.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions for interim child and spousal support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed the applicant father's income at $396,634 for support purposes, rejecting his request for a three-year average.

Interim child support was ordered on a set-off basis due to shared parenting, and interim spousal support was set to achieve a 50/50 split of net disposable income, applying an SSAG exception for compelling financial circumstances.

The respondent mother's request for security for support via life insurance was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, finding no basis for the respondent's request for exclusive possession, but stipulated that the sale completion should not occur before July 1, 2024.

This is a costs decision following a four-day trial where the self-represented Mother was largely successful on issues of equalization, child support, and parental decision-making.

The Mother sought $95,000 in full-indemnity costs, while the self-represented Father pleaded impecuniosity.

The court exercised its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Family Law Rules, finding the Mother was significantly more successful than her offers to settle and that the Father's litigation conduct was unreasonable and caused excessive delay, including late engagement, refusal of financial disclosure, and argumentative testimony.

While the Mother's legal fees were deemed reasonable, a $10,000 discount was applied for duplication due to a lawyer change.

The Mother was ultimately awarded $75,000 in substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant sought to set aside a marriage contract, arguing it was invalid due to insufficient disclosure, unconscionability, and duress.

The respondent sought a declaration that the contract was valid and enforceable.

The court found no credible evidence to support the applicant's claims of discrepancies in the contract or duress, attributing alleged issues to photocopying errors.

The court emphasized the applicant's failure to exercise due diligence by not reading the contract and found no exploitation of unequal bargaining power.

The marriage contract was declared valid and enforceable, and the applicant's motion was dismissed, while the respondent's cross-motion was granted.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a temporary order for primary residency of the child, a change in school, disallowing the mother from school pick-ups, a 12-panel hair follicle drug test for the mother, and suspension of the mother's parenting time, along with child support adjustments.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's unexplained absence from the child's life for approximately eight months following the signing of Minutes of Settlement.

The court granted the father primary residency and ordered drug testing for the mother, structuring a slow reintegration of her parenting time contingent on clean urine tests.

The request to change the child's school was denied at this stage, and child support obligations were adjusted, with the mother ordered to pay support to the father.

The applicant sought an adjournment of a five-day trial in an international child abduction case, citing educational conflicts, inability to file evidence after counsel termination, and uncompleted procedural steps.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, while the Office of the Children's Lawyer did not, noting the children's preference to remain with the applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, emphasizing the need for prompt disposition in international child abduction cases under Rule 37.2 of the Family Law Rules, and found her reasons insufficient to warrant delay.

This trial decision addresses a mother's application to relocate with her child from Ontario to Portugal, along with issues of decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support.

The court denied the relocation request, finding it not in the child's best interests due to the mother's failure to provide proper notice, the lack of a well-defined plan, and concerns regarding the mother's partner's legal issues and financial stability.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, while establishing a detailed parenting schedule for the father.

The father was ordered to pay child support arrears and ongoing support.

The mother's request for a restraining order was denied.

The court issued supplementary reasons to clarify the precise start date and length of cohabitation for spousal support calculations.

The applicant contended cohabitation began in January 1992, while the respondent asserted May 1995.

The court determined that cohabitation commenced in October or November 1994, resulting in a cohabitation period of 21.5 years.

This clarification was deemed necessary because the length of cohabitation impacts the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) "without children" formula, which became relevant after child support obligations ended.

The applicant father sought a step-down plan for unsupervised parenting time with his son, Jaxson, following allegations of past inappropriate conduct with another minor and his placement on the Child Abuse Register.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking fully supervised access at a centre or no access, and sole decision-making responsibility.

The court, prioritizing the child's best interests and relying on expert evidence, found the father did not pose a sexual risk to his son.

The court ordered a modified step-down plan for parenting time, contingent on the father's continued counselling, and granted the mother primary residency, deferring the decision-making responsibility issue to trial.

This trial addressed decision-making responsibility, parenting time, the mother's request to relocate, child support, and spousal support.

The court implemented a parallel parenting regime, granting the father sole decision-making for education and extracurriculars, and the mother for medical care, both with consultation obligations.

The mother's request to relocate the child to Welland was denied, as it was deemed not in the child's best interests due to the significant interference with the father's relationship and the unreasonableness of the proposed travel plan.

Child support was ordered based on the father's income, and the mother's income imputation was declined.

This was a focused summary hearing to determine the date of separation for a married couple, which impacts retroactive child support, spousal support, and net family property equalization.

The applicant wife claimed separation on January 1, 2015, while the respondent husband asserted December 2018.

The court found the wife's evidence, including her consistent tax filings as separated, changing locks, and corroboration from a child, to be more credible and consistent.

The husband's evidence was deemed inconsistent and deficient.

The court concluded that the parties separated on January 1, 2015.

The applicant sought interim child and spousal support in Ontario, while the respondent sought recognition and enforcement of Chinese divorce judgments that addressed child support and property division but not spousal support.

The court found that the applicant had attorned to the Chinese jurisdiction by participating in the Chinese proceedings.

The court dismissed the applicant's public policy arguments against enforcing the Chinese judgments, including the lower child support amount and the absence of spousal support in Chinese law, finding that these did not "shock the moral conscience" of the Canadian court.

Consequently, the respondent's motion for summary judgment recognizing and enforcing the Chinese judgments was granted, and the applicant's motion for interim support was dismissed, as the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over issues already adjudicated in China.

This was an uncontested trial where the applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility for their child, primary residence, ongoing and retroactive child support, and a divorce.

The respondent did not file an answer or appear.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority, ordered the child to reside primarily with the applicant, imputed an income of $22,500 to the respondent for child support calculations, ordered ongoing child support of $197 per month, and retroactive child support of $3,152.

The divorce was also granted, with the court confirming reasonable arrangements for child support were in place.

The Applicant Mother and Respondent Father, who have a child with special needs, were before the court on a motion for parenting time and a cross-motion for child support.

The court addressed only the parenting time aspect, finding a material change in circumstances due to the Father's lack of contact with the child for eight months.

The court ordered a gradual restoration of the Father's parenting time, starting with specific daytime visits, and maintained the Mother's sole decision-making authority with a requirement to consult the Father.

The Mother's requests for a parenting course for the Father, OCL involvement, and unilateral passport/travel authority were denied.

The Father's request for joint decision-making and immediate equal parenting time was also denied.